LEGO Universe Stories Wiki talk:Policy
OK, the policy is WAY overboard. #Seriously, you want people to MOD a person's story JUST so that it follows your policy of this Wiki!? That just DEFEATS the purpose OF Wikia, you guys KNOW what I am saying is true. #I don't care if you ban me for saying this, but sometimes "Kill" is more approriate than "Smashed". Go ahead and BAN me for saying you need to revise the policy. #Because MODIFYING a person's story is WRONG, because Wikia's purpose is to create an ACCURATE collection of information. I honestly don't care if you ban me from this Wikia, because it is corrupt to Wikia's purpose, and it was a bad idea from the start. Sorry, but I'm leaving this Wikia. Bye-bye! *Dissapears in puff of smoke* ProfArchibaldHale 09:01, May 19, 2011 (UTC) I think that's a little rash... #We don't, and I repeat DO NOT modify others' stories. We merely fix grammar and possible inclusion of inappropriate content, to make it safe for a younger crowd. That's where Brickipedia went wrong: they aren't strict enough on the language used there. That's one of the reasons I'm making the Sherman Proposal, a new policy for Brickipedia. The policy you see here is actually a modified version of the in-progress Sherman Proposal. Believe me, that policy isn't very strict on editing rules. Yes, we do want our authors to go to extra lengths to make the stories wholly appropriate; let's not forget that these are about LEGO Universe. #Some households are not real keen on using the word "kill" when it comes to a 6 - 10 year old crowd. I want to make this wiki safe for everyone. #Again, we DON'T MODIFY the stories. The stories themselves do not change. Some of the wording and all of the incorrect grammar may change, but we will NEVER modify the storyline. EVER. If we need to see a dramatic change in the story, we will contact the author, or remove the story from the wiki (very rare case). I would never ban you for voicing your opinion. You're my friend. I don't think that leaving is necessarily the best option, but that's up to you. I'd be much happier if you stayed, and you finished your story... We don't need another dormant unfinished story. Besides, it was nice having you around. About the kill thing... you must have come from a very overprotective family. That's really all there is to say on the matter Kryiptuun 00:11, May 22, 2011 (UTC) I never said that that was my family... * 6-10 year olds shouldn't have wikia accounts: COPPA -- stercus accidit -- cjc 20:53, May 23, 2011 (UTC) **Oh, and surely, replacing the word kill with whatever is just as bad. -- stercus accidit -- cjc 20:53, May 23, 2011 (UTC) For the 6 - 10 yr. old issue, you don't have to have a Wikia account to read the stories, you know. For the "kill", I'm not the first to do that. I got called on it at http://lusecrets.com, another LEGO Universe fan site (a very good one, I must say). BUT, if the community so dictates, I will change that. BTW, that guideline isn't in the Brickipedia version. :So, you could say "murders" or "decapitates" or "massacres" or "slaughtered", but not killed? -- stercus accidit -- cjc 13:38, May 24, 2011 (UTC) CJC's short analysis ; I-B ;* Surely the author should decide if they want to write their story in British or American English? ''Sherman Response: It would be helpful to readers if the style of writing was unified a bit more; two different spelling systems can get confusing for younger kids.'' ;* Abandoned story archive? Just make that a list that links to stories that have been "abandoned", and have a template that places them for adoption at the top. (Or, just let the author get back to it, they may just take a break for a while). ''Sherman Response: Exactly what I had in mind.'' ;* Kill I've mentioned above ''Sherman Reponse: See above.'' ; II ;* A-1-a Only admins voting in admins mean it is not a community decision, goes against the principals of how the wiki works ''Sherman Response: I think you're right on that one. My original reasoning was that someone could request adminship, and the community could overule the admins' disapproval votes and get this person into adminship, though he'll take the wiki backwards.'' ;* A-1-d Removing inactive admin rights is silly. What if they have a problem in life and can't find time to wiki for some months and come back? Having inactives with admin rights does no harm. ''Sherman Response: It makes a bit less scary. Besides, too many chefs spoil the soup.'' ;* A-1-e You've spelt "rights" wrong. (and the title could be shorter) ''Sherman Response: I was gonna change that, and that was completely Will's idea.'' ;* A-2-a Activity =/= Good rollback (means not equal to) ;* A-2-b Surely anyone with a knowledge of how to use the templates can? I'll have more when you finish Section III -- stercus accidit -- cjc 13:50, May 24, 2011 (UTC) * So still creating a Brickipedian version? Kingcjc 20:24, June 23, 2011 (UTC) Yes. I think. I'll have a lot of work to do on it, though... Strict grip on language... So, why exactly DO we have this thing about cursing here? It's in two words: decency and reputation. For the first word, why do people want to curse, anyway? Because it isn't decent, and people like being rebellious; I'm not pointing fingers, so please don't think I am. It's part of human nature. Let's keep things clean, to make sure younger readers aren't scarred and we don't get complaints from angry parents. I don't want to risk it, and none of you should want to, either. Let's keep it clean, folks! Second, I want this wiki to be known as a safe and practically flawless community (flawless is impossible, this has been proven through time). If we're not so strict about the language, we can't go over to LMBs and say, "Hey, come on over to LUSW!" because any hint of bad language will but us on the baddie list by the mods. So, my request to all of you: PLEASE double-check your posts to eliminate any hint of cursing or foul language. I can guarantee, there will be a whole lot fewer arguments on the wiki. Thank you.